Our film imagined a post-Roe nightmare. Then it came true
Amy reminds me of the girls I grew up with. Delicate, but exhausted and under pressure. She works long hours at a convenience store with a manager who offers no flexibility. Determined to save enough for college classes toward her degree, Amy has also shouldered the responsibility of supporting her mother, who has grown dependent on painkillers. She cleans homes to cover unexpected expenses, like becoming pregnant after a condom broke during sex, but she was unable to scrape together enough cash to purchase the morning-after pill.
On June 3, the Trump administration revoked guidance that required hospitals to provide emergency abortions for patients in need. This national directive was issued in 2022 by the Biden administration, using the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and it was intended to assist women facing medical emergencies and other serious complications. The Trump administration's action is just the latest salvo in an ongoing battle, one in which reproductive freedom seems to be losing ground every day. The mood, among both doctors and patients, is one of persistent uncertainty and fear. Here in the emergency room, Amy and I both feel it.
The cut on Amy's finger was a ruse — a desperate act to access care. She is pregnant and doesn't want to be. But in our state, abortion is illegal. As an emergency physician, I tell her – quietly – that if she travels to another state, she can receive proper care. She'll need to budget a certain amount of cash for travel expenses. We keep this conversation between us.
The possibility of this scene has become all too familiar a worry in real life, but the truth is that Amy isn't real. And I'm not really an emergency physician, I just play one in a movie.
A few months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, while we were both still attending journalism school at New York University, my friend Nate Hilgartner approached me about a film he wanted to write and direct about the ethical implications of a post-Roe world. He had me in mind to play a doctor in a rural town torn between her duty to help her patient and the imperative to obey restrictive new laws. It would be an American horror story, he told me. At the time, it seemed prophetic but impossible, a bit of artful exaggeration to warn against a dystopian tendency. Today, it's our reality, and in some ways, things are worse.
The consequences of a woman not receiving the reproductive healthcare of her choice could lead someone like our fictional protagonist to lose her ability to create a life on her own terms, trapping her in a cycle of poverty with a lack of education.
In Georgia, a pregnant woman who has been declared brain-dead is being kept on life support until her baby can be delivered. Across the country, women have been turned away from emergency rooms after suffering ectopic pregnancies, which require an emergency abortion to prevent potentially fatal outcomes. Doctors have been reprimanded and fined, including Caitlin Bernard, an OB-GYN from Indiana, who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim denied an abortion in Ohio. Three years ago, all of this would have sounded like fiction, a fever-dream storyline out of The Handmaid's Tale.
An investigation by ProPublica in December 2024 revealed that doctors in states with abortion bans often feel abandoned by lawyers and hospital leaders when seeking guidance on how to proceed with patients in emergencies. Since information about managing the bans in each state have been provided only on a 'need-to-know' basis, many doctors are left to navigate alternative options on their own, with some becoming too afraid to offer care, fearing professional and personal consequences. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oreg.) described the situation as doctors 'playing lawyer' and lawyers 'playing doctor,' leaving pregnant women facing life-or-death situations caught in the middle. Experts warn that the decision to eliminate access to emergency life-saving abortions will further exacerbate the crisis for doctors.
The Trump administration's order to revoke emergency abortions sends a clear message to women who lack adequate resources to afford proper care. EMTALA, enacted in 1986, was designed to protect patients and ensure they receive stabilizing emergency care, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. While all pregnant women benefited from this law, it now appears that only those with sufficient health care and life circumstances will be able to survive potential emergencies.
I am a writer and an actor, not a doctor. But for a time I imagined what it was like to be seated across from a woman scared and uncertain about the choices she could make about her body. Amy may not be real, but her plight is. Many of us may not admit it, but we've had our scares, moments where we've had to seriously consider the possibility of what we'd do if confronted with a pregnancy we weren't ready to have. At an age where I contemplate my own reproductive future, I am given pause: How can anyone assume there will never be complications in their pregnancy? Stories like Amy's aren't just about the right to make decisions about our bodies; they're also about the painful truth that those choices often come with a cost.
When we set out to make this film, No Choice, we hoped to imagine a plausible future — not to prophesy our present reality. We could never have predicted just how quickly real-world headlines would not only validate our story, but outpace its darkest possibilities. Making a film was just one of many actions we hope other people will take to challenge the belief that a woman's body belongs to the state, not to herself. No Choice premieres in Los Angeles at the Dances With Films festival on June 23 — just one day shy of the third anniversary marking the fall of Roe v. Wade.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Border agents directed to stop deportations under Trump's asylum ban after court order, CBS News reports
By Christian Martinez (Reuters) -U.S. border agents were directed to stop deportations under President Donald Trump's asylum ban, CBS News reported Monday citing two unnamed Department of Homeland Security officials. The direction comes after a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit on Friday partially granted an order that limited the asylum ban, saying it cannot be used to entirely suspend humanitarian protections for asylum seekers, according to CBS. Officials at Customs and Border Protection were instructed this weekend to stop deportations Trump's asylum ban and process migrants under U.S. immigration law, CBS said. Last month, a lower court judge blocked Trump's ban on asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, saying that Trump had exceeded his authority when he issued a proclamation declaring illegal immigration an emergency and setting aside existing legal processes. The American Civil Liberties Union brought the challenge to Trump's asylum ban in February on behalf of three advocacy groups and migrants denied access to asylum, arguing the broad ban violated U.S. laws and international treaties. Trump has stepped up arrests of immigrants in the U.S. illegally, cracked down on unlawful border crossings and stripped legal status from hundreds of thousands of migrants since January 20. He has vowed to deport millions of people in the country illegally even as the administration has faced dozens of lawsuits across the country for its tactics.
New York Times
14 minutes ago
- New York Times
A Nuclear Reactor on the Moon? Come Again?
The acting administrator of NASA has issued a directive to fast-track efforts to put a nuclear reactor on the moon. 'To properly advance this critical technology to be able to support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space, it is imperative the agency move quickly,' Sean Duffy, the secretary of transportation whom President Trump appointed last month as temporary leader of the space agency, wrote in the directive, which was sent out on Thursday. Politico was first to report on the directive. In it, Mr. Duffy cites plans by China and Russia to put a reactor on the moon by the mid-2030s as part of a partnership to build a base there. If they were first, China and Russia 'could potentially declare a keep-out zone' that would inhibit what the United States could do there, Mr. Duffy said. The directive calls for the appointment of a NASA official to oversee the effort within 30 days and for a request seeking proposals from commercial companies to be issued within 60 days. The reactor will be required to generate at least 100 kilowatts of electrical power — enough for about 80 households in the United States — and to be ready to launch in late 2029. One lunar day lasts four weeks on Earth — two weeks of continual sunshine followed by two weeks of cold darkness. That harsh cycle makes it difficult for a spacecraft or a moon base to survive with just solar panels and batteries. Current exploration efforts, both by NASA and by the Chinese-Russian partnership, are focusing on the south polar region, where the sun is never high over the horizon and the bottoms of some craters lie in permanent shadows. Over the years, NASA has financed nuclear reactor research, including the awarding of three $5 million contracts in 2022 to companies developing initial designs. Those designs were smaller, producing 40 kilowatts and weighing under six metric tons. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
14 minutes ago
- New York Times
Marjorie Taylor Greene Asks for George Santos's Sentence to Be Commuted
George Santos, the disgraced former congressman and notorious fabulist who pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft after being expelled from the House, has been in federal prison for 11 days on a sentence of more than seven years. On Monday, one of his former colleagues began a formal effort to get him out. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the brash Georgia Republican and MAGA adherent, sent a letter to the Justice Department's pardon attorney asking that Mr. Santos's 87-month prison term be commuted, calling it 'excessive' and a 'grave injustice.' Ms. Greene's letter came just days after President Trump, who has doled out pardons or clemency to staunch supporters and others favored by his right-wing base, did not rule out offering a pardon to Mr. Santos, saying only that he had not been asked. 'Nobody's talked to me about it,' Mr. Trump said on Friday in an interview on the right-wing channel Newsmax. Still, the president, who is known for his own exaggerations and outright falsehoods, acknowledged Mr. Santos's reputation. 'He lied like hell,' Mr. Trump said. 'And I didn't know him, but he was 100 percent for Trump.' It was an accurate assessment. Mr. Santos, 37, rode into Congress in January 2023 as the object of national scorn after The New York Times and other outlets uncovered that he had fabricated much of his résumé, including a booming Wall Street career and ties to Sept. 11 and the Holocaust. He was ejected that December, after three-quarters of the House voted to expel him. But during his 11-month stint in Congress, Mr. Santos, a Republican from New York, frequently aligned with hard-right lawmakers like Ms. Greene. And even before he took office, Mr. Santos was a reliable Trump loyalist. After both men lost their elections in 2020, Mr. Santos repeated the president's debunked claims of election fraud and falsely insisted that he, too, had an election stolen from him. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
